David Brooks of the New York Times has written an alternative biography of Mitt Romney that makes for witty reading (He was sent to a private school, where he was saddened to find there are people in America who summer where they winter.) But in the course of doing some internet research about this Romney fella, I found out hes running against someone called Barack Obama. Obamas biography makes for fascinating reading, too.

Barack Obama was born in 1961, the location marked by the appearance of a new star in the East. His mother lived on food stamps and his grandmother owned Hawaii. Between them, their son averaged out as middle-class.

[SNIP]

.....His horizons broadened, this born-again guru decided that it was time to walk away from the self-serving vanities of the legal profession and go into politics. He put on a blindfold, stuck a pin a map and found that God ("noun. 'synonym for Obama'") wanted him to start in Chicago.

........Promoted by his friends Jimmy the fist Vincente and Sam youll vote the way Jimmy tells you to Giovanni, he rose quickly in the ranks to become a state senator, where his courageous stand on abortion makes him one of the few prochoice Democrats prepared to say on record that choice doesnt have to end after birth.........Obamas ability to make even the most complicated issues sound all about him impressed voters first at the 2004 Democratic National Convention (As I stand here today, I cant help but think about myself) and then during the 2008 presidential primaries (Imagine how great it would be if I won this election). His inauguration was declared a new beginning and a national holiday  in Venezuela...

Obama is to our enemy what Margaret Sanger was for Hitler.A means to an end.They envision the final destruction of their Hated America But the enemy has underestimated Christ since He was prophesied of in the Garden. And the enemy of America today miscalculates the vitality f the American Christian.

Doesn't anyone on this board recognize satire when he reads it? My goodness, David Brooks didn't write this piece. It was penned by TIm Stanley, a satirical blogger for the U.K. Telegraph. It's reference to Brooks is an ironic slam.

There comes a time in life when most see the frivolity and immaturity in valuing “cool” over wisdom. It’s Rush’s favorite line, “Symbolism over substance”.

Doing the chicken strut when you walk with your underwear showing, is not “cool”...it’s more like “monkey see - monkey do”. There’s no more originality in that than wearing your cap backwards or sporting a “hoodie” in the middle if July.

But, liberalism is built around groupthink and faddism, any original thought is quelled by peer pressure and emotionalism.

Most of the guys I know in high school, who were considered “cool” at the time, are either in jail, hooked on drugs, or collecting food stamps.

The “dorks”, or “squares” of the day are now doctors, lawyers, engineers, or running corporations. The “cool” ones - who are not on probation - are working for the nerds.

The real meaning of “cool” turns out to be the ones who have succeeded in life, who don’t depend on the government or anyone to feed their families and raise their kids. The real “cool” ones have worked hard and made their own way in life. They don’t need brand-name clothing or $300 sneakers to make them “hip”.

Unless you’re in high school, or at a party, “cool” means very little to the rest of the world. I mean, how many ways can one break-dance anyway?

Obama is the prime example of all this, very “cool” in public, but inept, and a total failure.

27
posted on 08/29/2012 6:21:37 AM PDT
by FrankR
(They will become our ultimate masters the day we surrender the 2nd Amendment.)

Cincinatus’ Wife,
I can’t really say what I think of this marxist punk or some gubmint goons would visit me.
Course they can kill bush in movies without problems but I can’t even say what I’d like to see happen to him.

Doesn't anyone on this board recognize satire when he reads it? My goodness, David Brooks didn't write this piece. It was penned by TIm Stanley, a satirical blogger for the U.K. Telegraph. It's reference to Brooks is an ironic slam.

Now I don't know if you're in earnest or kidding. Follow the link in the Telegraph article to the bona fide Brooks column in the Times. Stanley wrote his own column about Obama in the spirit of Brooks's column about Romney.

Most of it is actually pretty funny

Which one? Brooks's column seems like one bad joke repeated over and over again, and it's not exactly fair to Romney. I don't know if Stanley's column is funny in itself, but reading it after Brooks's it just seems like more of the same thing.

Brooks fell in love with Obama because he knew who Reinhold Niebuhr was and could talk about that 20th century theologian. I'm thinking, if you went to Harvard and taught in a major law school, you should probably know something about Niebuhr and be able to talk about him for a minute. If you didn't and couldn't you should ask for all your tuition money back. It's part of the bare minimum of knowledge you should have with theat background.

Well penned. I don't disagree with a word. I just think contributors to this board should read the posted material carefully before commenting for purposes of quality control. One should avoid living down to the Left’s stereotypes.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.